North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Bogon list
- From: Chris Woodfield
- Date: Fri Jun 07 13:45:51 2002
Well, the biggest offender in this respect by far was @home, and you know what
happened to THEM...
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:55:08PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Bogon list
> > RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
> So, in other words inappropriate use of RFC 1918 does not break Path MTU
> Discovery! You can't still have your cake and have eaten it too. One
> way or another RFC 1918 addresses must not be let past the enterprise
> boundaries. Lazy and/or ignorant people don't always meet all the
> requirements of RFC 1918, but it's only their lack of compliance that
> _may_ allow Path-MTU-discovery to continue working for their networks
> for _some_ people _some_ of the time.
> However any enterprise also using RFC 1918, but using it correctly (or
> customers of such an enterprise), and thus who are also carefully
> protecting their use from interference by outside parties, will be
> filtering inbound packets with source addresses in the RFC 1918 assigned
> networks, and so as a result they _will_ experience Path-MTU-discovery
> failure (i.e. at any time it's necessary it literally cannot work) when
> attempting to contact (and sometimes be contacted by, depending on the
> application protocol in use) any host on or behind the lazy and/or
> ignorant operator's network(s).
> (and no, I'm not sorry if I've yet again offended anyone who might be
> mis-using RFC 1918 addresses for public nodes -- you should all know
> better by now! How many _years_ has it been?)
> > > 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries
> > > (of which an exchange would be a boundary)
> > What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from
> > legit routable address space.
> If you have any IP address level trust relationsips on your internal
> LANs then you _MUST_ (if you want those trust relationships to be valid)
> filter all foreign packets with source addresses appearing to be part of
> your internal LANs.
> > For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree
> > they shouldnt be rfc1918.
> On this we can agree! :-)
> Greg A. Woods
> +1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Description: PGP signature